Friday, 23 September 2016

A life less worthy?

"There’s a one in billions chance
[we’re in] base reality... I think it’s one in billions. We should hope that’s
true because otherwise if civilization stops advancing, that could be due to
some calamitous event that erases civilization, so maybe we should be hopeful
this is a simulation. Otherwise, we will create simulations that are
indistinguishable from reality or civilization will cease to exist. Those are
the two options.”Elon Musk.

Philosophers as far back as Plato
(see the allegory of the cave) have reasoned that what we perceive is not
reality. With the advent of computers and especially the stupendous increase in
computing power, we have to ask ourselves- are we part of a huge computer
simulation? Sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? Perhaps, but there are serious
professional physicists and philosophers out there who consider the concept not
only plausible, but likely. And no, these folk are not inmates of a secure
mental health facility, they are, in the main, tenured academics. So on this
rainy Sunday afternoon I'm going to look briefly at some of the arguments for
and against the hypothesis: are we simulated entities spewing from a very,
very, sophisticated computer?

The argument goes something like
this as first proposed by the philosopher, Nick Bostrum in 2003: There is one
of three possible scenarios for any civilisation. Of which only one is true.

1. Civilisations do not reach a
'posthuman' stage where they are capable of rendering highly sophisticated
simulations using computer power.

2. Civilisations reach this stage,
but for whatever reason (?ethics) they have no interest in running a
simulation.

3. Sophisticated civilisations are
running simulations and that there is a high probability we are living in a
simulation.

Bostrum argues that at least some
highly advanced civilisations would produce 'super-simulations'. He then
contends that the possibility of a simulated world is not only plausible but
likely. If our civilisation has progressed to this stage then our perceived
world is not real (base reality) but a mere fabrication. In fact it doesn't
have to be our civilisation devising the code. Maybe a highly developed alien
civilisation has beaten us to it. Could 'we' exist as an experiment or as pawns
in a simulated game designed for the amusement of little green men? Erm, this
is certainly an interesting conundrum. What would this mean for our morality,
ethics and how we view ourselves as 'humans'? And what about the ultimate, BIG,
question- God: Is God an alien programmer?

Here is something to consider: Our
computing ability has increased at a giddy rate over the span of just 60 years.
Remember those simple tennis games of the early 1970s? Now contrast this with
the complex role playing computer games of today. Moore's law, which originated in the 70s,
simply states: 'computer processing power doubles every two years'. Tis a bold
predictive statement but one that has shown to be pretty much correct. What
will our computing capacity be in say, 20 years from now? I’m sure you will
have noticed the problem of this sort of reasoning. To posit thusly, I’m
assuming that we are not Sims, yet.

Something else to ponder. The
universe seems fine tuned for our existence (Anthropic Principle). If the laws
and fundamental physical constants were different to just a very small degree
then a universe able to support life could not exist. The universe might be a
very different place indeed; no stars; no planets; no aggregates of matter at
all. Of course, someone designing a simulation on a super computer would get the
programme just right so that the simulation could work so we could exist. Those
of a religious bent could perhaps see the 'hand of God'. Although it is also
true that if the laws of physics were otherwise we wouldn't be here to ponder
this quandary. Just because a set of parameters is improbable this should never
equate as impossible. Here is a simple thought experiment: It is estimated that
there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
(let's call it X) grains of sand on Earth. This is about the same number of
stars in the visible universe. If you could travel anywhere in the globe and
select just one grain of sand the chances of you picking any particular grain
would be 1 in X. Truly a staggering astronomical probability. But yet, there is
that grain of sand, in your hand.

The grain of sand analogy neatly
leads me to:

What is reality anyway? Surely
impressions of the outside world impinge on our senses, carried by electrical
signals to the brain where they are processed and interpreted to provide a
sense of reality. How can it be otherwise? And if the universe is not perceived
by a sentient being does the universe actually exist? Regardless, you have got
to ask yourself: So what, if we are in a simulation or occupy base reality. Our
reality is what exists for us, now. Would a simulated apple taste as sweet as a
real one? I would argue, yes.

And finally, I would just like to
say a few words about how all this relates to the concept of God. I mentioned
earlier that if we are in a simulation then the ‘being’ running the show could
be conceived as a god, to the poor pixels dancing to the programmer’s tune. I
would argue to the contrary. Whatever a God, actually is, it is not an entity
within our frame of reference. In other words, IT cannot be part of the natural
universe but by definition, lies in the supernatural realm, whatever they might
mean. A super programmer is very much part of the universe and consequently,
like us, subject, to natural laws and hence causality. A god cannot be a living,
breathing, entity writ large, it has to be a ‘being’ outside the universe
otherwise a human would be a god to a dog and a dog a god to an amoeba etc.

As my readers have probably
gathered, I’m not an adherent to the ‘Simulation Hypothesis’. The deeper we
think about this the more we become hopelessly mired in mind boggling
paradoxes. Real life is bloody complex enough without conjuring up the
intellectual monstrosity of a simulated life, perhaps? This doesn’t necessary
mean it is not true, though. It simply will not do to argue that as we do not
like the idea it should not be the case. If we are against the hypothesis we
should be prepared to get off our sweaty arses (arse) and argue cogently why
this is not so. And yea, to do so we must be prepared to enter the world of
obtuse metaphysical concepts. Nuff said (for now).

12 comments:

All rather reminds me of Brian Aldiss's 'Report on Probability A' - the blurb for which says:

"It was a still January afternoon. Within the house moved a woman, the strangely fascinating Mrs Mary; without a black and white cat stalked the pigeon known as X. From various outbuildings she is observed by three watchers, G, S and C.

But as they watch, they are themselves observed by others in a seemingly parallel continuum. And yet others watched these watchers...."

I have often wondered if the universe was nearly a figment of my imagination and if only my consciousness exists. Naturally if this so then it is irrefutable and anyone arguing to the contrary is a figment of my imagination also.

Then I thought that if this is the case I must be truly fucked up to have thought up this crock of shit...

I think we are working towards this but we are not there yet because if we were we would all be rich, getting blown by and doing whatever we wanted. Who would be daft enough sign up for a simulation that was going to give me a woman that can talk and nags constantly, when I have to work to live comfortably and I don't have any superpowers.

When that system is perfected happens the West is doomed. Those in the third world who would invade and kill us in our little pods.

Matt, I must remind that you apply yourself to diligent studies if you would wish to matriculate. As your tutor and mentor (and possible biological father)I entreat due application. Always remember that this mad old bugger will be marking your final paper. If you aspire to an 'A' a little financial inducement and a wadge of cash can only help.